Most public servants have to attend numerous meetings that only involve members of their own Division, Branch or Section. It is essential to have as many of these meetings as possible so that the business of government can run suitably slowly. There will usually be at least one of each of these meetings in every month; however, experienced public servants can usually schedule at least two section meetings each month, if not weekly section meetings. The longer these meetings can go for, the better, as this takes people away from communications with the outside world and gives them less time to work on their projects.
Such meetings are superficially for the purpose of making sure that people know what is going within the Division, Section or Branch. This is potentially dangerous if taken seriously, as you really don’t want people to know what you are, or are not, working on. However, a good public servant can use them achieve exactly the opposite. When you do have to speak, make sure your skills are such that you can talk for at least ten minutes without telling anyone anything they don’t already know. If you are a beginner and not confident in your ability in this area, it is best just to say that everything is on track. Then you can sit back and watch the masters work their magic. If these meetings are run well, they can last for up to half a day and end being an endurance test for all involved. Below are some tips to help extend the life of these meetings as much as possible.
A good internal meeting should be dreaded by everyone involved who does not see it as an opportunity for procrastination and obstruction. Those sincere and proactive government employees who feel an urge to ‘make things happen’ need to be ground down and reduced quivering messes as soon as possible.
Let everybody have a say
There are loads of people in government, and the corporate world, who love the sound of their own voice and who will be happy to crap on to anyone who will listen. It is important to let these people have an agenda item, as this will fill everyone else with dread even before the meeting has begun. In addition to this, there are large numbers of extremely insecure people who feel that when they have the chance to speak about their project, they need to explain everything that has happened, will happened, and is likely to happen. And I mean everything. These people could test the patience of the Dalai Lama. When this happens every month, it turns a meeting into a sort of ‘show and tell’ session, similar to what used to happen when you were at primary school.
Organise a presentation
Having an external person coming in to give a presentation at the end of the meeting will add to the endurance required to successfully survive an internal meeting. Find an ‘expert’ in a field (preferably a boffin) who wants to come and talk about their project. This is apparently an attempt to broaden the knowledge of those present; however, what it really does is raise levels of boredom to almost painful levels as the expert gets into the practical details of their project. They do their best to explain the mysteries of their research to people who have no interest, don’t give a shit, and basically, would rather subject themselves to physical torture rather than listen to the drivel that is occurring.
Ask a question that you know will result in a long and confusing response
Where, despite your efforts, it appears that a meeting is running too smoothly, you should have some back-up plans ready. One of the best ones of these is to have some questions prepared for those people you know like to hear the sound of their own voice., or are insecure enough not to be satisfied until they have told you everything they think you might, possibly, want to know. This takes the responsibility of extending the meeting away from you, and on to the responder. If you do this before it is your turn to speak you can take valuable time up, increase people’s levels of boredom, and so further reduce the amount of attention they are likely to pay to your own long and rambling explanation of the status of your projects.
Spread confusion
This is something that you will be able to do with more effectiveness, the higher up the ladder you reach within government. For instance, if you have become a Branch Manager you will be able to use branch meetings to hold the floor, using your time and influence to talk about business planning matters, accommodation issues, and bore people with what you heard at the Divisional Manager’s Meeting. This is where the Director telling you what happened at the Corporate Executive Meeting earlier on that week, in turn, bored you. Most of what you have to say will be of very little relevance to most of the staff and will be repetition for your Section Manager’s, who you have already met with. Talking about the problems being wrestled with by senior management will also give you the opportunity to let incomplete information out that can then be taken out of context, providing fodder for all the Drama Queens, who can then go out and start their campaigns to spread tension and innuendo.
Chair the meeting
Where possible, see if you can have a go at chairing meetings. This puts you in control of the agenda and timelines, and can let you practice your procrastination and obstruction methods on internal employees before you take them out to use on external clients. A good Chair will be able to give the most boring and tedious people the longest opportunity to speak, and while this can be a trial for the Chair, it is essential practice for when you get to positions of seniority. It also gives you the chance to see how long you can make the tortuous meeting last (keep a record and try to beat it the next time you take charge). One last point is that you can ensure that those annoying and enthusiastic staff members that cause so much trouble for everyone else by ignoring the five paradigms, all have an agenda item and therefore have to come along. You will be able to take great joy from the grimaces and tortured looks on their faces as they contemplate the next couple of hours of unmitigated boredom.
Showing posts with label bureaucracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bureaucracy. Show all posts
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Creating a 5-year strategic plan
Every government department needs a five-year plan, whether they realise this or not. Many departments even get their act together to actually produce such a plan. The process usually follows a path similar to this:
Step 1
The executive management team get together when the realisation dawns that the department or branch has been doing the same thing for many years, and they are now so far behind everyone else in their area that they are almost completely irrelevant and in danger of becoming a joke. Worse than this, the department may be disbanded, and it is the management level people that would be most at risk of losing their jobs. Something must be done to regain the illusion of usefulness and relevance.
Step 2
Firstly, the staff members have to be kept in the dark about the need for a new plan. This ignores the fact that the staff have been muttering and grumbling about the lack of direction for years and pleading for a new strategy. However, involving the staff is to be avoided at all costs as it will only complicate the process through the involvement of too many people, or worse still, it will attract numerous sensible and practical ideas that necessitate decisions to be made and actions to be undertaken.
Step 3 (Meeting 1)
The management team must meet behind closed doors to discuss the future direction. These discussions must follow the pattern of such documents, so the first step is to define the Vision and Mission Statement. A great deal of time is spent on this task as these set the scene for the whole strategic plan. The Vision is usually a one or two line statement that encompasses the dreams of the organisation. It should be noted that these dreams cannot relate to wishes of permanent anonymity and increased funding as this is a public statement. In normal circumstances, the first two hours of a three-hour meeting are taken up creating and refining the Vision. In fact this usually involves lots of arguing over the precise wording, as personal preferences in language and grammar take over and the meeting degenerates into an argument about whether the word ‘provides’ or the word ‘presents’ is a better option.
An experienced procrastinator can ensure that the whole meeting can be taken up by this debate without a definite resolution. However, a great deal of skill is required for this and it should not be attempted by beginners in procrastination. A tip for beginners is to initially stir the waters by bringing up a deeply philosophical question such as, ‘At its core, what exactly is the purpose behind coming up with a vision? And what is the difference between the Vision and Mission Statement anyway?’ It is guaranteed that most people in the room, if not all, will not really know the answer and are just following the standard headings without question. Some will attempt to answer, and in the process derail the meeting and demonstrate their own lack of knowledge, tailing off into silence as they realise the hole they’re digging. Hopefully by then it will be too late and numerous arguments will have broken out about what the differences actually are.
Step 4 (Meeting 2)
Repeat the previous meeting, but this time relating to the Mission Statement. Cast doubts on the progress made at the previous meeting and re-open the battles that were apparently resolved concerning the Vision. These battles are never really resolved, as an experienced public servant knows the value of holding a grudge for long periods of time (see Advanced Bureaucracy section for more about grudges).
Step 5 (Meeting 3)
This meeting will move on from the debacle of trying to define the Vision and Mission Statement, leaving them poorly worded and open to ridicule, preferable meaningless. Now it will be time to agree on the Objectives and Desired Outcomes. It goes without saying that the same confusion about the meanings of these two terms will cause this meeting to degenerate in the same way as the previous meetings. What is a ‘Desired Outcome? What is an Objective? Surely the Outcomes you are working towards are the same as the Objectives…aren’t they? Say no more.
Step 6 (Meeting 4)
As with all good 5-step plans there is a sixth step. If there is any will left to continue this process, and in reality it has often disappeared by this stage, it is now time to look at Actions and Responsibilities. However, in all likelihood what happens is that the procrastinators have successfully ground their colleagues into the dust and they are only able to come up with vague general statements about intent, with no substance. Where responsibilities are assigned, the vague nature of the actions are such that nobody knows what they mean and nothing will happen.
And there you have the generic government strategic plan.
Step 1
The executive management team get together when the realisation dawns that the department or branch has been doing the same thing for many years, and they are now so far behind everyone else in their area that they are almost completely irrelevant and in danger of becoming a joke. Worse than this, the department may be disbanded, and it is the management level people that would be most at risk of losing their jobs. Something must be done to regain the illusion of usefulness and relevance.
Step 2
Firstly, the staff members have to be kept in the dark about the need for a new plan. This ignores the fact that the staff have been muttering and grumbling about the lack of direction for years and pleading for a new strategy. However, involving the staff is to be avoided at all costs as it will only complicate the process through the involvement of too many people, or worse still, it will attract numerous sensible and practical ideas that necessitate decisions to be made and actions to be undertaken.
Step 3 (Meeting 1)
The management team must meet behind closed doors to discuss the future direction. These discussions must follow the pattern of such documents, so the first step is to define the Vision and Mission Statement. A great deal of time is spent on this task as these set the scene for the whole strategic plan. The Vision is usually a one or two line statement that encompasses the dreams of the organisation. It should be noted that these dreams cannot relate to wishes of permanent anonymity and increased funding as this is a public statement. In normal circumstances, the first two hours of a three-hour meeting are taken up creating and refining the Vision. In fact this usually involves lots of arguing over the precise wording, as personal preferences in language and grammar take over and the meeting degenerates into an argument about whether the word ‘provides’ or the word ‘presents’ is a better option.
An experienced procrastinator can ensure that the whole meeting can be taken up by this debate without a definite resolution. However, a great deal of skill is required for this and it should not be attempted by beginners in procrastination. A tip for beginners is to initially stir the waters by bringing up a deeply philosophical question such as, ‘At its core, what exactly is the purpose behind coming up with a vision? And what is the difference between the Vision and Mission Statement anyway?’ It is guaranteed that most people in the room, if not all, will not really know the answer and are just following the standard headings without question. Some will attempt to answer, and in the process derail the meeting and demonstrate their own lack of knowledge, tailing off into silence as they realise the hole they’re digging. Hopefully by then it will be too late and numerous arguments will have broken out about what the differences actually are.
Step 4 (Meeting 2)
Repeat the previous meeting, but this time relating to the Mission Statement. Cast doubts on the progress made at the previous meeting and re-open the battles that were apparently resolved concerning the Vision. These battles are never really resolved, as an experienced public servant knows the value of holding a grudge for long periods of time (see Advanced Bureaucracy section for more about grudges).
Step 5 (Meeting 3)
This meeting will move on from the debacle of trying to define the Vision and Mission Statement, leaving them poorly worded and open to ridicule, preferable meaningless. Now it will be time to agree on the Objectives and Desired Outcomes. It goes without saying that the same confusion about the meanings of these two terms will cause this meeting to degenerate in the same way as the previous meetings. What is a ‘Desired Outcome? What is an Objective? Surely the Outcomes you are working towards are the same as the Objectives…aren’t they? Say no more.
Step 6 (Meeting 4)
As with all good 5-step plans there is a sixth step. If there is any will left to continue this process, and in reality it has often disappeared by this stage, it is now time to look at Actions and Responsibilities. However, in all likelihood what happens is that the procrastinators have successfully ground their colleagues into the dust and they are only able to come up with vague general statements about intent, with no substance. Where responsibilities are assigned, the vague nature of the actions are such that nobody knows what they mean and nothing will happen.
And there you have the generic government strategic plan.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Dark Matter and how it influences bureaucracy
I have spent many years researching bureaucracy and recently came across some interesting research. It provides significant insights into this administrative phenomenon and may go a long way to explaining its source. To explain this, we need to look at the current search for dark matter and how it relates to gravity.
Addressing the long held notion that visible matter only makes up a fraction of the weight of the universe, Dr Paul de Oddorwan and his team of researchers at Noncomprendia University, believe they have discovered where some of this dark matter lies.
Dr Oddorwan and his current PhD candidate, Grant Spender, have spent many years trying to track down dark matter, and how it might relate to gravitational anomalies. They believe they have proven that, not only can dark matter be the cause of such anomalies, but that it also drawn to situations where there is already significant gravity.
Through a combination of empirical analysis and experimentation, they have found that the gravity of situations is exponentially increased by the presence of a type of dark matter, which they have called dim matter. When there is too much dim matter present, the gravity of some situations can get to the point of implosion, or explosion, depending on the nature of the matter at hand.
When they examined dim matter in detail, they found it to be an isotope of the recently discovered element, yet to be formally named, currently called Ununbium. This element has a half life of approximately 280 milliseconds (almost equal to the life of a good idea in government); however, work by Grant Spender has shown that the structure can be changed to make it more stable – in the short term. This isotope has one extra electron and has been named Bureaucrium.
The normal structure of Ununbium is 165 neutrons and 112 each of protons and electrons, giving it an atomic mass of 277. Usually in and out of existence in the blink of an eye, this element’s negatively charged electrons can, in some instances, start attracting a new type of particle – the positively energized moron. These morons, while never being part of the bureaucrium, cause the element to become incredibly reactive until enough of them have been attracted and it then becomes inert, overwhelmed by the numbers that prevent any light being shed by the bureaucrium.
Once the inert stage has been reached morons are repelled, however this does not appear to stop increasing numbers of morons wanting to attach themselves. These excess morons then hang in a cloud around any situation of gravity that they can find, awaiting the opportunity to latch on. They then travel around in ever decreasing circles until they crash into the nucleus, at which point they can cause an explosion. Positively energized morons have been shown to add no weight to any situation, and in fact consist mainly of a vacuum with very little substance. However, the sheer number of morons that are attracted to situations of significant gravity eventually leads to increased mass and instability.
However, this was only half of the story. They then needed to find out where the dim matter (and all the additional morons) came from. By studying situations of significant gravity, they soon realised that there were carriers of dim matter that, when added to a situation, dangerously increased the gravity. Drama Queens have been identified as the major carriers, but politicians, bureaucrats and fanatics of all sorts are also carriers. They then had to track where this dim matter was picked up by the carriers.
One theory that the team are following up is that there is a huge black hole composed of dim matter within each of the parliaments around the world and that these are major attractors of drama queens, and other carriers, to those institutions. These carriers then go and spread gravity to situations throughout their country, often taking morons with them. Dim matter also appears to replace grey matter in carriers.
Once bureaucrium had been characterized, the search for more of the morons was on. It has since been proven that there are indeed large numbers of positively energized morons in governments and all major bureaucracies throughout the world. They add extended life to bureaucrium and have been attracting increasing numbers of similar morons to these institutions.
So, the dark matter that resides in bureaucracies is really dim matter that symbiotically reacts with many, many morons that travel around in ever-decreasing circles.
Addressing the long held notion that visible matter only makes up a fraction of the weight of the universe, Dr Paul de Oddorwan and his team of researchers at Noncomprendia University, believe they have discovered where some of this dark matter lies.
Dr Oddorwan and his current PhD candidate, Grant Spender, have spent many years trying to track down dark matter, and how it might relate to gravitational anomalies. They believe they have proven that, not only can dark matter be the cause of such anomalies, but that it also drawn to situations where there is already significant gravity.
Through a combination of empirical analysis and experimentation, they have found that the gravity of situations is exponentially increased by the presence of a type of dark matter, which they have called dim matter. When there is too much dim matter present, the gravity of some situations can get to the point of implosion, or explosion, depending on the nature of the matter at hand.
When they examined dim matter in detail, they found it to be an isotope of the recently discovered element, yet to be formally named, currently called Ununbium. This element has a half life of approximately 280 milliseconds (almost equal to the life of a good idea in government); however, work by Grant Spender has shown that the structure can be changed to make it more stable – in the short term. This isotope has one extra electron and has been named Bureaucrium.
The normal structure of Ununbium is 165 neutrons and 112 each of protons and electrons, giving it an atomic mass of 277. Usually in and out of existence in the blink of an eye, this element’s negatively charged electrons can, in some instances, start attracting a new type of particle – the positively energized moron. These morons, while never being part of the bureaucrium, cause the element to become incredibly reactive until enough of them have been attracted and it then becomes inert, overwhelmed by the numbers that prevent any light being shed by the bureaucrium.
Once the inert stage has been reached morons are repelled, however this does not appear to stop increasing numbers of morons wanting to attach themselves. These excess morons then hang in a cloud around any situation of gravity that they can find, awaiting the opportunity to latch on. They then travel around in ever decreasing circles until they crash into the nucleus, at which point they can cause an explosion. Positively energized morons have been shown to add no weight to any situation, and in fact consist mainly of a vacuum with very little substance. However, the sheer number of morons that are attracted to situations of significant gravity eventually leads to increased mass and instability.
However, this was only half of the story. They then needed to find out where the dim matter (and all the additional morons) came from. By studying situations of significant gravity, they soon realised that there were carriers of dim matter that, when added to a situation, dangerously increased the gravity. Drama Queens have been identified as the major carriers, but politicians, bureaucrats and fanatics of all sorts are also carriers. They then had to track where this dim matter was picked up by the carriers.
One theory that the team are following up is that there is a huge black hole composed of dim matter within each of the parliaments around the world and that these are major attractors of drama queens, and other carriers, to those institutions. These carriers then go and spread gravity to situations throughout their country, often taking morons with them. Dim matter also appears to replace grey matter in carriers.
Once bureaucrium had been characterized, the search for more of the morons was on. It has since been proven that there are indeed large numbers of positively energized morons in governments and all major bureaucracies throughout the world. They add extended life to bureaucrium and have been attracting increasing numbers of similar morons to these institutions.
So, the dark matter that resides in bureaucracies is really dim matter that symbiotically reacts with many, many morons that travel around in ever-decreasing circles.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Become an instant expert - the art of bullshit
It is spread throughout our society, in fact most, if not all, societies. Many of us believe that a lot of other people are full of it. Whenever we see a politician on the campaign trail, listen to our boss, or even listen to a story in the pub, we smell the air to see if there are any telltale signs of it. It is bullshit, and it is everywhere.
It is common to hear the phrases ‘That’s bullshit!’ or, ‘You’re full of shit’. You may hear these phrases when you are at the pub, in your workplace, or even at home. They are a common way of expressing disbelief about what someone has just said. However, what they also show is that very few people are skilled in the art of bullshit. If you are in the company of someone who is a skilled bullshitter, you will not hear these phrases. They will have convinced all around them that they are explaining incontrovertible facts. It is an incontrovertible fact that the majority of people, probably around 99%, are very poor bullshitters. Hence, the common use of the abovementioned phrases.
Whether bullshit is verbal or written, it can be put to numerous uses. Politicians use it to convince people to elect them, applicants use it in their resumes and at job interviews, lobbyists use it when paid to support a particular position, individuals use it to gain success in their workplace, governments use it when they are writing policy positions or long-term strategies, and advertisers use it to sell products. Good bullshit can prevent you from having to answer difficult questions and provide an escape route from perilous situations. It can also provide you with the ammunition to sell ideas and raise your profile. People who are good bullshitters gain a great deal of respect in society. This respect is well deserved, as these skills are in great demand in any number of industries. They often rise to very powerful positions, as they are considered very knowledgeable. This is the ultimate success for the bullshitter – respect built on the quality of the bullshit that they have made a career out of spouting.
However, the art of good bullshitting is a difficult skill to master and requires a lot of work. There is a fine line between lying and bullshitting. Those that do not appreciate this will find themselves the subject of ridicule and distrust, and in all likelihood have their careers curtailed. Like any other art, bullshitting has a number of areas that you must address if you are to be successful. The three main areas are:
· Plausibility
· Simplicity
· Delivery
If you can master these, then you are going to have a very good chance of bullshitting your way to success.
Plausibility
The first thing to appreciate is that good bullshit must be based a round ‘facts’. You need to have a solid base on which to build your story and be knowledgeable enough to be able to answer the questions that might come your way. Shaky foundations leave you open to having your story torn apart with relative ease by those who have only a reasonable grasp of the area that you are talking about. There are a number of good sources from which you may be able to get your ‘facts’. These include:
Science - Good examples of the use of bullshit can be found in science. Facts and figures can be used to suggest something other than what the more common view proposes. To do this you can take some figures in isolation from overall trends and draw a superficial and tenuous conclusion. Some well-known bullshitters have carved out successful careers using this method, and these people deserve a great deal of respect. They are often listened to by large numbers of people who are convinced about the truth of what they are saying.
Press releases - Press releases are full of statements that can be latched on to. One of the many politicians, government departments, captains of industry, environmental or other interest groups, or foreign powers, is always likely to say something that can be used to support your story. On a rare occasion, there will be a statement on which you can build an entirely new story. Such opportunities should not be missed!
The media - The media is full of supposition and opinion. This is just what you need to assist you in your bullshit. The reach of the media is huge, so you can be sure that an opinion expressed in the media will have spread throughout the public in a very short period of time. Opinions can often be read in more than one way, depending on what information you put around them. One opinion can potentially be used to support a number of different points of view. This is pure gold and can get you a great deal of traction with your audience.
Government policy - Government policy is often vague. This vagueness may be infuriating to many people and result in differing interpretations. However, such vagueness is a very useful building block for a good story. It gives the bullshitter flexibility to entwine their story into an official position. This also adds a great deal of credibility to your bullshit.
Procedures - Government or corporate procedures are facts of another sort. They are facts because they exist, but they are more useful as a method of diverting questions that you may not be able to answer on the spot. They allow a government or corporate bullshitter to defer answering for any number of reasons. Perhaps the process is not finished, perhaps the process underway does not allow information to be released yet, or perhaps the process is entirely confidential because of commercial or legal reasons.
Known viewpoints - Where a particular person or group has a well-known viewpoint, this can be wound into your story to support a particular point of view. The context in which you state their viewpoint is entirely up to you, and you can always make the excuse that you misunderstood them if they complain.
Simplicity
To get your bullshit successfully received you need to make sure that your plausible facts are structured in such a way that you will not find yourself getting confused when you try to answer questions, or further explain issues. A piece of bullshit that is too complex has the potential to make you quite vulnerable to the sort of ridicule that you should avoid at all costs. Once your credibility is lost, it is most likely lost forever. So, the beginner should keep their bullshit relatively simple and easy to remember. This is especially important for those in public life.
The more experienced you become, the more complex you can make your story. If you are getting into science areas, you will need to have some complexity so that you can come across to the general public as an expert. Just be careful that you don’t over-complicate your story to the point of confusing yourself.
Unless you are bullshitting to a scientific community, and this is only for extremely advanced bullshitters, you should use only a small amount of jargon. The balance to be achieved is to use enough jargon so that you can appear to be comfortable with the subject you are talking about, without coming across as overly technical or remote from the general public. Showing good understanding of jargon by simply mentioning it but not getting into detailed explanations, will add to your credibility with the wider public, many of whom are so used to hearing jargon everyday, that they may become suspicious in the absence of such bullshit.
Delivery
How you deliver your bullshit is one of the most crucial areas of this art. Good delivery can lead to people not really hearing the detail of what you are saying, but getting caught up in the ‘vibe’ of your performance. And rest-assured, the delivery of bullshit is a performance. The best practitioners could convince the Pope that he was, in fact, not a Catholic. In a perfect world, bullshitters would have a category at the Oscars.
All aspiring bullshitters should undertake training in the delivery of a message. The ability to capture your audience and hold their attention for a period long enough to deliver your message is priceless. An inability to maintain the aura of a prophet delivering vital information to their flock, will often lead to people failing to take on your point of view, or worse still, trying to listen to the detail and non-existent substance of what you are saying.
One of the most important facets of your delivery is your preparedness to answer questions. This relates directly to the complexity of your bullshit. A useful exercise when delivering even mildly complex bullshit is to sit down and think about the type of questions that are likely to be asked by your audience.
Are you addressing the general public or are you talking to a lobby group with knowledge of what you are discussing? Once you have identified who is likely to be there, you can identify what the contentious areas and points might be, and if people will have a way of questioning your specific angle. Then draft some answers that will either rebut the criticism through some plausible theory or set of figures, or deflect the attention away from that area after acknowledging that, while it may be of significance, you feel that there are other more pressing and significant issues. This requires some serious research and imagination. All those amateurs who think that bullshit can be made up on the spot come to grief at this point.
Any bullshitter who gives a speech will themselves, or if they are fortunate, have had their assistants, scour the various issues relating to the topic they wish to comment on. They will be armed with form responses to the questions thought most likely to come their way, and they will have some generic get-out-of-jail responses for any unforeseen and difficult queries. Finally, unless you are a seriously accomplished bullshitter you should not improvise when delivering your message. Improvisation merely increases the possibility of being found out as a fraud and damaging your reputation. It gives your story far too much of an opportunity to collapse on itself and end up smelling like the crap that it is. Always go back to your prepared answers or, as a last resort, agree to get back to your questioner at a later date. Also, ask for their question in writing, because the majority of people cannot be bothered to write down their question and they will most likely forget about it.
So to summarise…
Base your bullshit on good research using selective and easily found ‘facts’, keep it as simple as possible, and deliver it with a confident and inspiring performance. The world will then be yours to conquer.
It is common to hear the phrases ‘That’s bullshit!’ or, ‘You’re full of shit’. You may hear these phrases when you are at the pub, in your workplace, or even at home. They are a common way of expressing disbelief about what someone has just said. However, what they also show is that very few people are skilled in the art of bullshit. If you are in the company of someone who is a skilled bullshitter, you will not hear these phrases. They will have convinced all around them that they are explaining incontrovertible facts. It is an incontrovertible fact that the majority of people, probably around 99%, are very poor bullshitters. Hence, the common use of the abovementioned phrases.
Whether bullshit is verbal or written, it can be put to numerous uses. Politicians use it to convince people to elect them, applicants use it in their resumes and at job interviews, lobbyists use it when paid to support a particular position, individuals use it to gain success in their workplace, governments use it when they are writing policy positions or long-term strategies, and advertisers use it to sell products. Good bullshit can prevent you from having to answer difficult questions and provide an escape route from perilous situations. It can also provide you with the ammunition to sell ideas and raise your profile. People who are good bullshitters gain a great deal of respect in society. This respect is well deserved, as these skills are in great demand in any number of industries. They often rise to very powerful positions, as they are considered very knowledgeable. This is the ultimate success for the bullshitter – respect built on the quality of the bullshit that they have made a career out of spouting.
However, the art of good bullshitting is a difficult skill to master and requires a lot of work. There is a fine line between lying and bullshitting. Those that do not appreciate this will find themselves the subject of ridicule and distrust, and in all likelihood have their careers curtailed. Like any other art, bullshitting has a number of areas that you must address if you are to be successful. The three main areas are:
· Plausibility
· Simplicity
· Delivery
If you can master these, then you are going to have a very good chance of bullshitting your way to success.
Plausibility
The first thing to appreciate is that good bullshit must be based a round ‘facts’. You need to have a solid base on which to build your story and be knowledgeable enough to be able to answer the questions that might come your way. Shaky foundations leave you open to having your story torn apart with relative ease by those who have only a reasonable grasp of the area that you are talking about. There are a number of good sources from which you may be able to get your ‘facts’. These include:
Science - Good examples of the use of bullshit can be found in science. Facts and figures can be used to suggest something other than what the more common view proposes. To do this you can take some figures in isolation from overall trends and draw a superficial and tenuous conclusion. Some well-known bullshitters have carved out successful careers using this method, and these people deserve a great deal of respect. They are often listened to by large numbers of people who are convinced about the truth of what they are saying.
Press releases - Press releases are full of statements that can be latched on to. One of the many politicians, government departments, captains of industry, environmental or other interest groups, or foreign powers, is always likely to say something that can be used to support your story. On a rare occasion, there will be a statement on which you can build an entirely new story. Such opportunities should not be missed!
The media - The media is full of supposition and opinion. This is just what you need to assist you in your bullshit. The reach of the media is huge, so you can be sure that an opinion expressed in the media will have spread throughout the public in a very short period of time. Opinions can often be read in more than one way, depending on what information you put around them. One opinion can potentially be used to support a number of different points of view. This is pure gold and can get you a great deal of traction with your audience.
Government policy - Government policy is often vague. This vagueness may be infuriating to many people and result in differing interpretations. However, such vagueness is a very useful building block for a good story. It gives the bullshitter flexibility to entwine their story into an official position. This also adds a great deal of credibility to your bullshit.
Procedures - Government or corporate procedures are facts of another sort. They are facts because they exist, but they are more useful as a method of diverting questions that you may not be able to answer on the spot. They allow a government or corporate bullshitter to defer answering for any number of reasons. Perhaps the process is not finished, perhaps the process underway does not allow information to be released yet, or perhaps the process is entirely confidential because of commercial or legal reasons.
Known viewpoints - Where a particular person or group has a well-known viewpoint, this can be wound into your story to support a particular point of view. The context in which you state their viewpoint is entirely up to you, and you can always make the excuse that you misunderstood them if they complain.
Simplicity
To get your bullshit successfully received you need to make sure that your plausible facts are structured in such a way that you will not find yourself getting confused when you try to answer questions, or further explain issues. A piece of bullshit that is too complex has the potential to make you quite vulnerable to the sort of ridicule that you should avoid at all costs. Once your credibility is lost, it is most likely lost forever. So, the beginner should keep their bullshit relatively simple and easy to remember. This is especially important for those in public life.
The more experienced you become, the more complex you can make your story. If you are getting into science areas, you will need to have some complexity so that you can come across to the general public as an expert. Just be careful that you don’t over-complicate your story to the point of confusing yourself.
Unless you are bullshitting to a scientific community, and this is only for extremely advanced bullshitters, you should use only a small amount of jargon. The balance to be achieved is to use enough jargon so that you can appear to be comfortable with the subject you are talking about, without coming across as overly technical or remote from the general public. Showing good understanding of jargon by simply mentioning it but not getting into detailed explanations, will add to your credibility with the wider public, many of whom are so used to hearing jargon everyday, that they may become suspicious in the absence of such bullshit.
Delivery
How you deliver your bullshit is one of the most crucial areas of this art. Good delivery can lead to people not really hearing the detail of what you are saying, but getting caught up in the ‘vibe’ of your performance. And rest-assured, the delivery of bullshit is a performance. The best practitioners could convince the Pope that he was, in fact, not a Catholic. In a perfect world, bullshitters would have a category at the Oscars.
All aspiring bullshitters should undertake training in the delivery of a message. The ability to capture your audience and hold their attention for a period long enough to deliver your message is priceless. An inability to maintain the aura of a prophet delivering vital information to their flock, will often lead to people failing to take on your point of view, or worse still, trying to listen to the detail and non-existent substance of what you are saying.
One of the most important facets of your delivery is your preparedness to answer questions. This relates directly to the complexity of your bullshit. A useful exercise when delivering even mildly complex bullshit is to sit down and think about the type of questions that are likely to be asked by your audience.
Are you addressing the general public or are you talking to a lobby group with knowledge of what you are discussing? Once you have identified who is likely to be there, you can identify what the contentious areas and points might be, and if people will have a way of questioning your specific angle. Then draft some answers that will either rebut the criticism through some plausible theory or set of figures, or deflect the attention away from that area after acknowledging that, while it may be of significance, you feel that there are other more pressing and significant issues. This requires some serious research and imagination. All those amateurs who think that bullshit can be made up on the spot come to grief at this point.
Any bullshitter who gives a speech will themselves, or if they are fortunate, have had their assistants, scour the various issues relating to the topic they wish to comment on. They will be armed with form responses to the questions thought most likely to come their way, and they will have some generic get-out-of-jail responses for any unforeseen and difficult queries. Finally, unless you are a seriously accomplished bullshitter you should not improvise when delivering your message. Improvisation merely increases the possibility of being found out as a fraud and damaging your reputation. It gives your story far too much of an opportunity to collapse on itself and end up smelling like the crap that it is. Always go back to your prepared answers or, as a last resort, agree to get back to your questioner at a later date. Also, ask for their question in writing, because the majority of people cannot be bothered to write down their question and they will most likely forget about it.
So to summarise…
Base your bullshit on good research using selective and easily found ‘facts’, keep it as simple as possible, and deliver it with a confident and inspiring performance. The world will then be yours to conquer.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Great Government Philosophers
Many great thinkers have spent years studying government and how it should work. These individuals are often overlooked, but they provide important insights into how bureaucratic systems work. As far back as the classical civilisations of Rome, Greece and China, we can find the origins from which modern government has grown. There are four little-known philosophers from this period who have provided great guidance to government over the last two millennia. These are Obstrucius, Burocrates, Futilius and Dillayus.
Obstrucius – The first and greatest
Not many people have heard of the great philosopher Obstrucius. He lived from 550 BC to 470BC in a time when China was still fragmented. He is an often forgotten philosopher who had many ideas about how governments should be run. The view that he eventually came to was that every employee within a bureaucracy could probably use the same advice. Unfortunately his guide for bureaucrats is now lost, but some of his quotes remain. The list is extremely lengthy, however I have included a selection of some of the more pertinent ones that the new government employee should become familiar with. There is no record of the death of Obstrucius and it is widely rumoured that he is immortal and continues to run governments all over the world.
By three methods may we run government: First, by obstruction, which is noblest; second, by procrastination, which is easiest; and third by out-sourcing, which is dearest.
To be able to practice the five paradigms everywhere in government constitutes perfect virtue: delay decisions, cover one’s arse, show no initiative, don’t communicate and remain anonymous.
He who speaks without jargon will find it difficult to achieve promotion in government.
The will to confuse, the desire to delay, the urge to reach complete anonymity…these are the keys that will unlock the door to public service excellence.
A public servant who commits a mistake and doesn’t correct it should follow government paradigm number two.
Burocrates – The Greek perspective
The pre-eminent Greek philosopher was Burocrates. Born in 450 BC, Burocrates studied early democracy and saw government in a holistic manner. He regarded it as a form of art, and viewed public servants as artists whose job was to provide aesthetically pleasing processes and outcomes in a manner that was not rushed by the mere inconvenience of time. He was a contemporary of Socrates, and it is rumoured that these two philosophers spent many hours discussing the relative merits of democracy and royal rule over large amounts of wine. He met his death in 385 BC when he found himself in an argument with another contemporary, Aristophanes, who accused him of having all the characteristics of a the popular politicians he studied: a horrible voice, bad breeding, and a vulgar manner. During the quarrel they both died when their brains dribbled out of their ears due to the banality of their arguments. Unfortunately Burocrates is not widely known and few, if any, academics have seriously studied his work. However, he leaves us with some notable quotes including:
The pure art of government should be unsullied by the ticking of the clock or the pen of the accountant.
Where the path appears straight and without danger, extra care should be taken and your pace slowed.
A quick decision is like a premature ejaculation. It deprives the bureaucrat of respect and leaves him feeling unsatisfied.
The vote is a precious thing, its value priceless. Never have so many people been kept happy by such a futile act.
Let a politician announce decisions and keep him happy for a day. Let a politician think he made the decisions, and keep him happy for a whole term of government.
Futilius - The study of committees.
Ancient Rome had a philosopher who made a career out of investigating the bureaucratic process of committees – Futilius. Futilius carried out his work in the time of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Gaius Julius Caesar and Augustus and studied the public service of the day. He was born in Rome in 99BC and died shortly after Julius Caesar in 40 BC only three weeks after he was himself asked to chair a committee as he seemed to know so much about it. He decided to put his theories to the test and was brutally stabbed to death by the committee’s executive officer, who insisted that he had done the world a favour. As with Burocrates, he developed a great deal of advice that has stood the test of time, but received little recognition for his work. Five of his best known quotes are included below.
Chairs should every night call themselves to an account; What decision have they delayed today? What proposals opposed? What innovation resisted? What public servant frustrated ? Other people’s projects will abort of themselves if they be brought every day to this account.Be extremely vague, even to the point of deferral. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of confusion. Thereby you can be the director of the public servant’s demise into insanity.
All public servants servicing the Board pass through three stages. First, they are ridiculed. Second, they are violently opposed. Third, it is accepted that they are too difficult to change and they are ignored.
All Board meetings are based on procrastination. There is no place where the brakes are not applied. Offer the public servants hope to lure them in, and then trap them in a cage of frustration.
Where no policy exists, ask for a new one; where a policy exists, ask for a new one; where there is no need for a policy, insist on a new one.
Dillayus – Out of the shadow of Futilius
At the same time that Nero was striding through the corridors of Rome, Dillayus was contemplating the complex area of government decision-making. He was born in Rome in 5 AD and grew up reading much of the work of Futilius. He identified areas that Futilius had not spent much time researching and ended up specialising in the study of emergency situations where decisions appeared imminent. He is perhaps not as well known as Futilius, and might not have had the same standing, however he did produce a large body of work that remains relevant. He died in 64 AD after being in trapped in the great fire that swept Rome after finding himself distracted by Nero’s fiddle playing and unable to decide on the best course of action until it was too late. His gems of wisdom include:
When in doubt, employ an outside expert to review all information.
The pure joy of procrastination is unrivalled by other experience in government.
When all other means of obstruction have been exhausted, all that is left is public consultation, the mother of all delaying tactics.
There is never enough information to make a decision. Those who disagree are not in possession of all the facts.
When all is lost and a decision is inevitable, take solace in the fact that you did everything possible to prevent it.
Obstrucius – The first and greatest
Not many people have heard of the great philosopher Obstrucius. He lived from 550 BC to 470BC in a time when China was still fragmented. He is an often forgotten philosopher who had many ideas about how governments should be run. The view that he eventually came to was that every employee within a bureaucracy could probably use the same advice. Unfortunately his guide for bureaucrats is now lost, but some of his quotes remain. The list is extremely lengthy, however I have included a selection of some of the more pertinent ones that the new government employee should become familiar with. There is no record of the death of Obstrucius and it is widely rumoured that he is immortal and continues to run governments all over the world.
By three methods may we run government: First, by obstruction, which is noblest; second, by procrastination, which is easiest; and third by out-sourcing, which is dearest.
To be able to practice the five paradigms everywhere in government constitutes perfect virtue: delay decisions, cover one’s arse, show no initiative, don’t communicate and remain anonymous.
He who speaks without jargon will find it difficult to achieve promotion in government.
The will to confuse, the desire to delay, the urge to reach complete anonymity…these are the keys that will unlock the door to public service excellence.
A public servant who commits a mistake and doesn’t correct it should follow government paradigm number two.
Burocrates – The Greek perspective
The pre-eminent Greek philosopher was Burocrates. Born in 450 BC, Burocrates studied early democracy and saw government in a holistic manner. He regarded it as a form of art, and viewed public servants as artists whose job was to provide aesthetically pleasing processes and outcomes in a manner that was not rushed by the mere inconvenience of time. He was a contemporary of Socrates, and it is rumoured that these two philosophers spent many hours discussing the relative merits of democracy and royal rule over large amounts of wine. He met his death in 385 BC when he found himself in an argument with another contemporary, Aristophanes, who accused him of having all the characteristics of a the popular politicians he studied: a horrible voice, bad breeding, and a vulgar manner. During the quarrel they both died when their brains dribbled out of their ears due to the banality of their arguments. Unfortunately Burocrates is not widely known and few, if any, academics have seriously studied his work. However, he leaves us with some notable quotes including:
The pure art of government should be unsullied by the ticking of the clock or the pen of the accountant.
Where the path appears straight and without danger, extra care should be taken and your pace slowed.
A quick decision is like a premature ejaculation. It deprives the bureaucrat of respect and leaves him feeling unsatisfied.
The vote is a precious thing, its value priceless. Never have so many people been kept happy by such a futile act.
Let a politician announce decisions and keep him happy for a day. Let a politician think he made the decisions, and keep him happy for a whole term of government.
Futilius - The study of committees.
Ancient Rome had a philosopher who made a career out of investigating the bureaucratic process of committees – Futilius. Futilius carried out his work in the time of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Gaius Julius Caesar and Augustus and studied the public service of the day. He was born in Rome in 99BC and died shortly after Julius Caesar in 40 BC only three weeks after he was himself asked to chair a committee as he seemed to know so much about it. He decided to put his theories to the test and was brutally stabbed to death by the committee’s executive officer, who insisted that he had done the world a favour. As with Burocrates, he developed a great deal of advice that has stood the test of time, but received little recognition for his work. Five of his best known quotes are included below.
Chairs should every night call themselves to an account; What decision have they delayed today? What proposals opposed? What innovation resisted? What public servant frustrated ? Other people’s projects will abort of themselves if they be brought every day to this account.Be extremely vague, even to the point of deferral. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of confusion. Thereby you can be the director of the public servant’s demise into insanity.
All public servants servicing the Board pass through three stages. First, they are ridiculed. Second, they are violently opposed. Third, it is accepted that they are too difficult to change and they are ignored.
All Board meetings are based on procrastination. There is no place where the brakes are not applied. Offer the public servants hope to lure them in, and then trap them in a cage of frustration.
Where no policy exists, ask for a new one; where a policy exists, ask for a new one; where there is no need for a policy, insist on a new one.
Dillayus – Out of the shadow of Futilius
At the same time that Nero was striding through the corridors of Rome, Dillayus was contemplating the complex area of government decision-making. He was born in Rome in 5 AD and grew up reading much of the work of Futilius. He identified areas that Futilius had not spent much time researching and ended up specialising in the study of emergency situations where decisions appeared imminent. He is perhaps not as well known as Futilius, and might not have had the same standing, however he did produce a large body of work that remains relevant. He died in 64 AD after being in trapped in the great fire that swept Rome after finding himself distracted by Nero’s fiddle playing and unable to decide on the best course of action until it was too late. His gems of wisdom include:
When in doubt, employ an outside expert to review all information.
The pure joy of procrastination is unrivalled by other experience in government.
When all other means of obstruction have been exhausted, all that is left is public consultation, the mother of all delaying tactics.
There is never enough information to make a decision. Those who disagree are not in possession of all the facts.
When all is lost and a decision is inevitable, take solace in the fact that you did everything possible to prevent it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
